What God Has joined together, Sermon 8 of 10
What About New Covenant Grounds For Divorce?
(Children's Sheet for Sermon Interaction is at bottom. Notes for young children to answer are throughout sermon)
Starting out this morning, I need to mention something that is a problem in the expansive church. It is serious. It is growing. It is a tragedy that is like a monster that is eating up the lives of God's children. I am talking about Christians divorcing. This problem has touched many of us in a profound way. In my own circle of acquaintances, I know of three local Christian families who have succumbed to the tragedy of divorce over the last couple of months. With these casualties in my mind, I have an extra burden as I approach the remaining sermons in this series. Starting this morning, I will be teaching on some biblical positions concerning certain areas of divorce and remarriage. There are two views I am concerned with. Essentially, in my understanding of New Covenant directives, I do not see that there is support in the New Covenant scriptures (properly exegeted) in God's preceptive will, for a spiritually alive child of God (I'm talking about a Christian) to file for a divorce from another spiritually alive child of God (a Christian). Further, according to certain New Covenant scriptures, I see that a Christian who has divorced is allowed to remarry another Christian. How this translates practically is very important because;
1) my involvement in marital conflict is to always try to keep Christians married,
2) if the Christians do become unmarried, (de-married, "loosed" from the bond to someone) then I seek to encourage them if they should choose to become remarried.
I can only do this if I am certain that I have a right biblical foundation for my position. This morning, we will explore the first part of why I take these important doctrinal stances. In doing so, I hope to edify you, and others, in the wider scope of the body of Christ. Please prepare your heart to learn, along with me, in this sermon titled,
What God Has joined together, Sermon 8 of 10
"What About New Covenant Grounds For Divorce?"
[prayer]
Foundationally, there is something evident from Scripture. God makes it clear in Malachi 2:16 (in speaking to Judah) that he hates the divorce of His people. God said this to them even though He made provisional allowance for divorce in the Old Covenant Mosaic Law. God did not say that He hated it when He divorced from ethnic Israel in Jeremiah 3:8 and Isaiah 50:1. God divorced Israel as a matter of His sovereign judgment upon the nation. God remarried faithless Israel, in His grace, as we see later in Jeremiah. But the simple fact is that God has always hated divorce among His people. The reason God hates divorce of His people is because God is the One Who joins together His people. Further, He does it for His reasons. The reason He gives through Malachi to Old Covenant Israelites was because He was seeking godly offspring. In the New Covenant we see the paramount reason; Christian marriage is a picture of the everlasting fidelity of Christ with His church, Ephesians 5. The point is that marriage is God's institution. He intends it to go on until death.
So here we are considering grounds for divorce. As we do, we must approach the subject recognizing the difference between Old Covenant enlightenment, and New Covenant enlightenment. The Old Covenant Mosaic Law is meant for Christians to use as revelation, but not for regulation. It is meant to be for Christians to use for memory, but not for method. It is meant for Christians to use for informing us, but not for conforming us. Keeping this in mind, we find that there are some Scriptures that deal with the subject of divorce that are found in the section of the Bible that we typically call "the New Testament." They are also used by Christians as support for brothers and sisters in Christ to divorce from one another. Before we examine those passages, we need to explore a first principle in answering the question, What about New Covenant grounds for divorce?
/1/
In respect to the New Covenant people of God, which is what we are as Christians, we are primarily concerned with the New Testament Scriptures for recognizing God's preceptive will for us on this matter. We are also concerned with the New Covenant itself. So our first principle has to do with determining what the New Testament is. We also need to determine what the New Covenant is. The English word "Testament" is a term derived from the Latin Vulgate Bible. It comes from the word "testamentum." The Latin Vulgate has testamentum translated from the Greek word diatheke. Testamentum is where we get the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" in dividing the Bible into two sections. But we need to understand an important fact. Daitheke literally means "Covenant." This is why most English translations translate diatheke exclusively as "covenant." This is important for us to know. The reason it is important is because there is an Old Covenant and there is a New Covenant. "Old Testament" and "New Testament" may be terminology that we use to divide the physical Bible into two sections, but there is more to the meaning that has to do with actual covenants. The question we need to answer is: What is the Old Covenant? There were a few older covenants that the New Testament writers refer to. There was the old covenant made with Abraham, typically called the Abrahamic covenant. Usually though, the New Testament writers referred to the Law of Moses as the Old Covenant. This is typically what we mean when we speak of the Old Covenant too. Writing of the sons of Israel, Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3;
"14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the Old Covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;" 2 Corinthians 3:14-15
When Paul speaks of the apostate Jews reading Moses, he is speaking of the Mosaic Law that was given to ancient Israelites at Mount Sinai. The Mosaic Law is the "Old Covenant." So the Old Testament and the New Testament is really much more than two sections of the Bible. Certainly we can use the "testaments" labeling to quickly denote the two sections of the Bible, but in respect to the covenants it is more precise to make the distinction as the writer of Hebrews states,
"Jesus Christ is the guarantee of a better covenant," Hebrews 7:22, 8:6
@1 Jesus Christ is the guarantee of a ________________________ covenant," Hebrews 7:22, 8:6
The better covenant is called the "New Covenant," 2 Corinthians 3:6. This important distinction is why the writer of Hebrews says,
"15 For this reason He [Christ Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." Hebrews 9:15
And concerning His resurrection,
"... God ... brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant, even Jesus our Lord," Hebrews 13:20
The Old Covenant was temporary. The New Covenant in Christ's blood is everlasting. So we see that the Old Covenant is the Law of Moses given at Mount Sinai. The New Covenant is essentially Christ, His work for us, and His work in us in establishing all the details. Simply put; The New Covenant was instituted in Christ in crucifixion, and resurrection. All of God's people since the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ are God's people because of, and in, the New Covenant. It is with these things in mind concerning Old Testament / New Testament; Old Covenant / New Covenant, that we can examine the New Covenant data concerning grounds for divorce.
/2/
Before we do this, we need to cover the second principle. The Second principle is that not all of the section in our Bibles that people call the New Testament, which have areas that mention divorce, are New Covenant passages meant for preceptive instructions for New Covenant people to do. This principle is important because there are Christians who are inclined to list Matthew 1:19; Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12 as primary New Covenant texts instructing New Covenant people concerning grounds for divorce, and what to do in respect to divorce in our everlasting covenant in the crucified and resurrected Christ, Hebrews 13:20. But, those are not New Covenant texts concerning grounds for divorce, and what to do in respect to divorce. Yes, they do have teachings of Christ who later inaugurated His New Covenant in His blood and resurrection; but the fact that Christ is teaching is not an issue. Yes, they are also located in our Bibles in a section called the "New Testament," but based upon the first principle, we recognize that being in a section of the Bible called the New Testament is not an issue either. What is an issue is when they were taught, why, and to whom. For example the 4 Gospel History Chronicles explain some things that Jesus said while in the Old Covenant pre-cross part of His ministry. If we do not understand this fact, then we will try to bring those teachings over into our Covenant for regulation, method, and conformation; like this,
"21 Jesus ... withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, 'Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.' 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His students came and implored Him, saying, 'Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.' 24 But He answered and said, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'" Matthew 15:21-24
And others like this,
"Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?'" Matthew 19:3
The Messiah was sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but now in His New Covenant He calls His elect from every tribe, people, tongue, and nation to be His body church. In like manner, Matthew records Pharisaic dialogues with Jesus concerning the Old Covenant Mosaic law and whether divorce for any reason aligns with the statutes. But we must recognize that this question centered primarily around two Rabbinical schools of thought in respect to Deuteronomy 24. One followed the Rabbi Shammai. The other followed that of Rabbi Hillel. Each Rabbi made lists of what could constitute the basis for Torah divorce. The school of Shammai was more restrictive than that of Hillel. In Christ's New Covenant now, disputes about particulars of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law codes are not something that controls our actions. The point is that there are multitudes of teachings, and dialogues, that occur before the New Covenant was established in Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. They have to do with Jesus coming only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. They have to do with Jesus calling Old Covenant Israelites to turn (repent) to Him as the true Messiah that was promised to sit on the kingdom throne of David. They have to do with His rejection; His crucifixion, and His resurrection. Many of them are teachings concerning clarifications, and disputes, in respect to the Old Covenant Law of Moses that was still in effect. Some are teachings about who Christ is, what Christ did in miracles to prove who He was, and prophetic truths He taught of His Messianic reign kingdom that was "at hand." So, it is important to understand that to reference Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, concerning a Christian's grounds for divorcing, is to reference issues;
1) under the Old Covenant Law of Moses,
and
2) concerning disputes, and clarifications, of particulars of the Mosaic Law, which the Jews were under, and concerned with, during the dialogues recorded.
Both are items that are not applied in the same way, and same sense, to inform the Body of Christ (His church, Colossians 1:18, 24) in His New and better Covenant. Nevertheless, even though they are Old Covenant texts directed at Israelites under the Mosaic Law, we can learn from them as memory of what happened. We can learn from them as revelation concerning Christ's view of the Old Covenant Law and His higher law of love which was to be the higher (super) law of the New Covenant as fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and we can learn from them as information concerning the facts. God had them recorded for us to know what happened in Jesus' pre-cross ministry in his confrontation with the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I don't want to spend a lot of time on them, but I do want to briefly look at each one so that we can become acquainted with them and what they actually mean.
{A}
Let's quickly look at Mark 10:2-12. It is an account of Jesus confronting the Pharisees who were under the Old Covenant. The Pharisees were testing Christ on points of the Mosaic Law--particularly Deuteronomy 24:1-4. They asked Jesus if it was Lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus' answer agrees with what He, as God, said in Malachi. He answers by pointing back to a time way before Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts. His answer is that God joins together His people in marriage, and divorce was not part of God's intended design. Jesus finally wraps up His teaching by saying "therefor what God has joined together let no man separate." Here is the point: According to the One who authored the Mosaic Law, and Who was the great interpreter of the Mosaic Law, and Who was also the great expert on God's will for marriage from the beginning, Jesus taught, while living in the Old Covenant Law period, that no man should separate the marriages of God's people through divorce.
{B}
The next passage that is typically looked to from the Gospels is Matthew 1:19. Joseph is described as a "righteous" man in seeking secretly to divorce Mary the mother of Jesus while they were betrothed. The fact that Joseph was called righteous in his actions is very important. In this Old Covenant respect, Joseph would have had to be considered righteous (also called just) in his actions based upon strictly adhering to the Law of Moses to justify his decisions. Matthew 1:18-20 gives us the details,
"18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.'" Matthew 1:18-20
To understand the events here where Joseph was engaged but able to divorce at this stage, we must recognize the strength of betrothal according to the Old Covenant Mosaic Law. We must also recognize the nuance of how different it was from the post-marriage consummation. In other words, how different it was in being "before they came together." We must also understand some things about the Old Covenant Law to see why Joseph could be considered a righteous Israelite in what he planned to do. First I want us to consider the Israelite betrothal covenant of that time. MT Gilbertson, in his book, "The Way It Was In Bible Times," explains the strength of the pre-marriage marital kind of sense of betrothal:
"The betrothal was really a covenant of marriage. The families of the bride and groom met with some witnesses not included in the family group. The young man gave the bride a ring of gold, or some article of value; in some cases it was only a document in which he promised to marry the girl. Then he would say, 'See by this ring (or token) thou art set aside for me according to the law of Moses and of Israel.' This betrothal was as binding as marriage. At least a whole year passed between the betrothal and the actual marriage. The real marriage consisted simply in the groom coming to take the bride to the family home to live. Not until this date did the couple actually live together. ... There was no religious ceremony in the wedding. The groom simply brought the bride to his father's house. This was a signal for feasting which continued for an entire week. Friends, neighbors, and relatives stayed in the home during all this time. The bride in the home of her husband's father was now legally a piece of clan property. She was assigned a share of the duties of the household." (pp. 48—49)
Scripturally, the strength of the binding betrothal as a kind of pre-marriage marriage, can be seen in the Old Covenant command of Deuteronomy 22:23-30, where it states that a "virgin" that is "betrothed," is also called a man's "wife." The strength of this Binding betrothal can also be seen from the Old Covenant command in Deuteronomy 22:28. It states that if a man fornicates with a "virgin, who is not betrothed," then he must pay her father and,
"she shall become his wife because he has violated her, he can not divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:28
Because the virgin was not betrothed, the man who fornicated with her then could, and must, marry her and can not divorce her. If she was betrothed to someone else already, which would equate to the pre-consummation leaving and cleaving marital covenant, then both the violator, and she, would have been stoned to death. Exodus 22:16 basically explains the same outcome:
"16 If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife." Exodus 22:16
The point is that the lawfully binding betrothal period was paramount to marriage but was different in some ways, (differences for example, like in coming together in consummation at the groom's house that he prepared for marriage, and in establishing home life together in leaving parents and cleaving to one another). In the context of what happened with Joseph; he was seeking to divorce his betrothed during the betrothal period because he apparently surmised (speciously) that Mary had been impregnated by a forced act of fornication upon her by an unknown individual (rape). Apparently, if Joseph had initially heard the story about the Holy Spirit impregnation, he did not embrace it as a factual reason. For Joseph to be "a righteous man" in his plan, he had to follow the sense of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law in connection with the other Law statute in Deuteronomy 24 that the Pharisees were alluding to in questioning Jesus,
"25 But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her." Deuteronomy 22:25-27
In other words, Joseph was treating Mary like she was a rape victim, and yet Joseph was not sure what circumstances had brought about Mary's pregnancy. The point is that if Joseph did not treat Mary as a rape victim, then the law required that she be stoned to death according to Deuteronomy 22:20-21 and Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (see footnote 1 below on stoning still being practiced at the time). The point is that righteous Joseph was avoiding the execution of the one he loved by giving his betrothed some benefit of any doubts he may have had concerning how she got pregnant. This gave Joseph the sole and only "righteous" reason, according to the Law, for not stoning her. In doing so, Joseph was also able to utilize the Old Covenant Law statutes of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, (in conjunction with Deuteronomy 22:23-30) which gave Law keeping Joseph the righteous and just reason to put her away privately to not cause her shame,
"1 When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Joseph's view of things justified his Law based action to divorce in accordance to what his culture accepted in respect to not finding favor in Mary. Instead of being surprised on their consummation night by finding out that she had been previously defiled, Joseph found out early on that she had been impregnated. But what happened? Everything changed when an angel came to Joseph and explained the real way that Mary got pregnant. Once Joseph was sure of the details, Joseph went on to keep Mary as his wife in the next stage of committed marriage. This information will help us to understand the next two passages in Matthew I will cover. The next passages contain what is called the "Matthean exception clause." This exception clause is more information that Matthew supplies that Mark does not include in his account in Mark 10:2-12. It is called the exception clause because Jesus gives the one reason that He sees as a Lawful exception to not divorcing, which is also the only reason he gives for remarriage without committing adultery in the Old Covenant.
{C}
It is in Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:3-12. Again, it is a dispute that has to do with Deuteronomy 24:1-4. First let's read Matthew 5:31-32. Jesus is teaching his students in His sermon on the Mount,
"31 It was said, 'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce'; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of fornication [porneia], makes her commit adultery [moicheia]; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery [moicheia]. Matthew 5:31-32
Notice that Jesus gives the exception for divorce as being the reason of porneia-fornication. Also notice that porneia-fornication is the only reason why a woman can remarry. The same goes for the man who marries a woman divorced for any other reason, which is remarriage that is better clarified in Jesus' teaching on this same thing in Matthew 19:9. Let's look at Matthew 19:9 now. Again, we find the Pharisees testing Jesus by asking His opinion on the matter of how to apply Deuteronomy 24:1-4;
"3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?' 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate. They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?' 8 He said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication [porneia], and marries another woman commits, adultery [moicheia]'" Matthew 19:7-9
@2 From the beginning of creation, the way of God is that a man shall leave his father and mother and be ___________________ to His wife, and the two shall become ______________ flesh. Matthew 19:5 (Genesis 2:24)
Jesus answers the Pharisees with the same exception clause in verse 9. This exception for divorce is once again the reason of porneia-fornication which is also the exception for remarriage. Again, porneia, in this context, is fornication which is sexual sin. Moicheia is always the sexual sin of adultery. Old Covenant divorce, according to Jesus, was allowed for specific porneia-fornication--not Moicheia adultery. In Jesus' point, he is not equating porneia-fornication with moicheia-adultery. He is purposely distinguishing porneia-fornication as something different from moicheia-adultery for a very important reason, and the distinction is made clear by Jesus in his choice of delineating the two terms. Jesus makes sure he speaks of each in a different category, and Matthew demonstrates that this distinction is purposeful in the way he wrote his gospel account. This is a key point, so don't miss it. Matthew's differentiation is made clear in the only other place that Matthew uses the word porneia other than Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:3-12. It is in Matthew 15:19. Again, it is Jesus talking. Notice that Matthew consistently quotes Jesus using both words separately and distinctly when Jesus said,
"19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, moicheia-adulteries, porneia-fornications." Matthew 15:19
According to Matthew, Jesus consistently signified that He considered the sin of adultery (moicheia), and the sin of fornication (porneia) to be two different things in His specific points. Of course both are evils that come out of the heart. Moicheia-adultery could be two people who are married to others who are willfully having intercourse with each other. "Willful" and "already married," are the operative words. Or it could be a single person and a married person both willfully having sexual intercourse. Again, willful and married, are the operative words. Both these scenarios are adulteries because they involve someone's spouse, and mutual consent, in the sin. Porneia would include many different kinds of sexual acts, even the act of raping someone which is to fornicate with them against their will. When it came to something like rape, it was an especially horrible manifestation of porneia that victimized another person. The point is that Jesus made this porneia / moicheia distinction in all the recorded dialogues in which He uses both words together. And right now we are still talking about the way Jesus used the word as recorded and described in the gospel of Matthew--the place the exception is recorded. Keeping all these things in mind, let's look more closely at the details of Matthew 19:3-12. Remember, Jesus tells the Pharisees that God joins together His people in marriage. Further, they are not to be separated by men; and so the Pharisees ask Jesus,
"'Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?' 8 He said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted [not commanded] you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for [porneia] fornication, and marries another woman commits [moicheia], adultery'" Matthew 19:7-9
Notice that Jesus points out the exception clause in verse 9. Now keep this in mind, and remember, we are examining an Old Covenant dispute about Old Covenant matters. But there is an underlying reason for why I started this analyzation for us who are in the New Covenant. The reason is because some Christians still insist on using this Old Covenant dispute as grounds to divorce from a brother or sister in Christ. They prefer to believe that what Jesus is saying is for the New Covenant body of Christ to practice. This is the reason I think it is so important for me to share my view of the exception clause which closely matches that of John Piper. Foremost concerning the exception clause dialogue, Jesus is referring to the Old Covenant Mosaic Law. Jesus is referring to similar kinds of scenarios in which His earthly father Joseph was seeking with Mary as a righteous man according to the same Mosaic Law Covenant statute. I think this is why Matthew records more details of the Joseph and Mary account like he does, and also the exception clause clarification. The other gospel writers did not give these details. I think Matthew wanted to make these things clear, and I also think that I am also making this clear this morning too. This is why Jesus clarified His divine view of the lawful exception to divorce from a wife, yet it is for a certain porneia-fornication category, where the man finds out that she was not a virgin when he married her and can only let her off alive in cases of suspected, or proven, rape fornication, and not for moicheia-adultery in respect to the unique details, and understanding, of the two passages from the Law I quoted earlier; Deuteronomy 22:25-27, and Deuteronomy 24:1-4. If she had fornicated beforehand, of her own accord, and the groom found out about it on their wedding night, then according to Deuteronomy 22:21-22, she was convicted of playing the harlot, and was to be stoned to death. This is why it is vital to recognize that Jesus is describing a woman who is divorced and is able to live to go on and marry another man in Matthew 5:32 which is the same remarriage of the female divorcee also clearly stated in Deuteronomy 24:2-3. So, what happened to her was not willing porneia on her part that would get her stoned. It was porneia from a perpetrators part in the form of rape in which she becomes the victim of porneia instead of a seeker of it. In light of this, since God permitted this peculiar divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts against their wives in which they find blemish in Deuteronomy 24, Jesus is declaring His divine commentary that this is the only lawful scenario that can apply to that infamous statute of the Mosaic Law. Of course, this did not fix the problem that occurs in nature where occasionally a virgin girl's hymen can be broken though she never has sexual intercourse. We can only imagine the serious weight of the burden of proof on the part of such virgins in asserting that they had remained pure. The main point is that obviously for someone to divorce from their betrothed demonstrates the hardness in their heart--even telling us something about righteous Joseph that we may not like hearing. Though "Moses allowed" this, as Jesus says, Christ was not finished with His point. Rabbi Christ explains His higher way. He points the Pharisees back to way before the Mosaic Law Covenant given on mount Sinai. He points them back to the original intent for marriage at the original marriage. Jesus simply says that it was not always this way. The man leaves his mother and father and cleaves to his wife no matter what. What God has joined together, no man should separate though divorce even in respect to taking a stand on the later Law allowance of Deuteronomy 24 being used with Deuteronomy 22:25-27 in finding indecency (uncleanness) with one's wife.
But remember, I am only going over Old Covenant divorce issues as a side teaching. I think I need to remind us of this because of the manner I tend to get detailed. Along this line, though, I think I need to point out that death was not always implemented in Old Testament history for adultery. For example, David and Bathsheeba were not stoned for their adulterous affair, but the law indicated that they should have been stoned. Also, Hosea was commanded by God to marry the prostitute Gomer. After marriage, she committed adultery with other men. She was not stoned according to the requirement of the Mosaic Law. Instead, she was shown the special grace that God had commanded Hosea to show her. In fact, Hosea was told to purchase His wayward wife out of slavery to live with her in loving grace after she had fallen to the lowest of lows in her adultery. The main point though, is that when we look at these things, we are observers looking at actions and disputes that have to do with the Jewish Old Covenant Mosaic Law codes. It is interesting, and even edifying, but we do not implement the Old defunct Covenant actions into Christ's New and better covenant where the law of love is our guide according to the Spirit in conjunction with the New Covenant word. This ends our coverage of the Old Covenant disputes with Jesus' subsequent explanation of His view concerning Jewish Mosaic Law divorce. So now as New Covenant Christians, let's look at teachings from our New Covenant apostles.
/3/
This leads to the third principle. The third principle is the teaching we have for New Covenant living. What about grounds for divorce in respect to New Covenant directives? That is what we spiritually alive people in Christ want to know about, isn't it?
--a--
The first Scriptural passage to examine for New Covenant teaching that some use for this area is Romans 7:1-4. Paul uses an analogy of people under the Mosaic Law in marriage to explain that the Christian's relationship to Law is that they have died to it. Paul says,
"1 Or do you not know, brothers (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she joins herself with another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. 4 Therefore, my brothers, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God." Romans 7:1-4
Clearly, divorce, or grounds for divorce, is neither mentioned by Paul in this passage, nor is it a concern. Paul points out that death logically frees one from an Old Covenant marriage. Of course it does. Divorce also frees one from the bond of marriage, but that is not Paul's metaphor in this point is it? Further, Paul is referencing those who are under the Mosaic Law as an analogy. Death of a spouse is used to explain the like manner in which God made us die to the Old Covenant Mosaic Law through the body of Christ, so that we would be "joined" v. 4, in becoming "one spirit" with Him, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:17, in which this spiritual marriage has us bearing the fruitfulness for God in like manner of a wife being fruitful in bearing children for her husband. Paul even clarifies the illustration by saying, "for I am speaking to those who know the law" because saved Israelites, who were once under the Old Covenant, existed among the audience recipients of his epistle. But this morning, we are New Covenant Christians who have died to the Law, and we are still looking to see if there are grounds for divorce in the New Covenant.
--2--
The next New Testament passage we need to look at is 1 Corinthians 7. It is where Paul instructs on issues of singleness; marriage; divorce, and remarriage. I will read verses 10-13;
"10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not be separated from her husband 11 (but if she does, she must remain unmarried [agamos which is her status as a divorcee], or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away." 1 Corinthians 7:10-13
Here Paul indicates that the Lord's instructions for marriage are that a wife should not be separated from her husband. Paul also says that a husband should not divorce his wife. The Spirit is saying that the normal course of action for His spouses should be what Jesus told the Pharisees was the foundation from the beginning. God's intended design, and will, for marriage is that what He has joined together in His holy matrimony, nobody should separate through divorce. But then notice that Paul gives his own opinion that a Christian spouse may allow an unbelieving spouse to stay married with the Christian spouse. The Christian spouse may also let the unbeliever leave. If the unbelieving spouse wants to stay with the Christian, then fine. If the unbelieving spouse wants to leave, then Paul says to go ahead and let the spouse go because there is no binding covenant in such cases. Nevertheless, Paul has not stated here that there is a ground for a Christian to proceed to divorce from another Christian. Paul has said that a spiritually dead person is allowed to stay in marriage with a spiritually living Christian so that the children will be set apart under the Christian parent, otherwise the children would be unclean because of the unequal yoke. The believer sets apart the unbeliever for the sake of the children.
"14 For the unbelieving husband is set apart through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is set apart through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are set apart." 1 Corinthians 7:14
By the way, this New Covenant instruction of Paul's, where unequal yoked marriages are allowed to continue, goes contrary to the mandate in Ezra 10 where the people were under the Old Covenant Law. Under the Old Covenant the people repented from marriages, where the Israelites married unbelievers, by divorcing from the unbelievers and sending both them and the children away. Paul, on the other hand, is saying that a Christian should not put the unbeliever and the children away like was done in Ezra 10 (based on the Old Covenant Law of Deuteronomy 7:3 and seen in the Old Covenant revival of Nehemiah 13:23-25). Instead, the whole marriage is set apart, along with the children, through the Christian spouse's personal relationship with Christ. Nevertheless, if the unbeliever leaves, then let the unbeliever go. A child of God in Christ is not in bondage in those kinds of abandonment cases by the spiritually dead spouse anyway. Next, there is 1 Corinthians 7:27 and 39
"27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you." 1 Corinthians 7:27-28
What Paul is doing is finalizing his previous teaching points with what is obviously a principle concerning married people. A man should not seek to be loosed from his wife. Finally in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul covers widows one more time in verses 39-40. He points out that a wife is bound to her husband while he is alive, but in death the marriage logically ends. Like the de-married [agamos-divorcee] through divorce where the covenant is dissolved, and those who have an unbelieving spouse who leaves, the widow is free to marry whom she wishes, but only in the Lord, which means he must be a Christian. This confirms Paul's initial comments in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.
We have just covered the New Testament passages that deal with divorce. In retrospect, I can find no legitimate New Covenant reason in the New Testament Scriptures for two spiritually saved people to contemplate, and then seek, divorce. This is the reason why my policy is to promote staying married when two Christians want to divorce. In light of this, certain questions arise;
"What if a Christian has already had a divorce from another Christian?
"Now what?"
This leads to the next principle.
/4/
In case of divorce, as a foundational fact, the divorced Christians are both under the New Covenant. What this means is that they are perpetually forgiven. Jesus Christ atoned for all of our sins, past, present, and future. He does not decide to forgive us of some of our sins. He made covenant to forgive all the elect from all their sins. This fact does not mean that God will take away certain negative consequences of our actions. But it does mean that God forgives the divorce action. In other words, Christians who divorce are not condemned to perish for their divorce. They do not lose their eternal spiritual salvation. Further, divorce does not necessarily bring into question whether they are truly saved, or not. But, then again, the grace covenant of Christ does not make the divorce right either. Nevertheless, it bears repeating: Through Christ we, who are saved, are forgiven for our actions, including the action of divorce where one is no longer married to the old spouse anymore;
"7 In Him [you] have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of [your] trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" Ephesians 1:7
@3 In Christ Jesus we, who believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, have redemption through His blood the ____________________ of our trespasses according to the riches of His grace." Ephesians 1:7
"1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins;" 1 John 2:1-2
@4 If any of us children of God in Christ __________ we have someone who stands with us with the Father. He is Jesus Christ the righteous One. He is the one who absorbed God's wrath for us for our ____________. 1 John 2:1-2
But there is more. There is also no New Covenant reason for such people to not reconcile with their previous spouse. In fact, the New Testament teaches reconciliation. In 1 Corinthians 7:11, Paul said that a wife should try to be reconciled to her previous husband after no longer being married to him through divorce. Finally, I believe that according to 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, and 1 Corinthians 7:27; particularly verse 28, that a divorced person is allowed to remarry another Christian. (I will be exegeting the texts on that view in great detail next week) Briefly, I will read the two texts just mentioned;
"8 But I say to the unmarried [previously married but now de-married from the Greek word agamois] and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I [Paul]. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; because it is better to marry than to burn with passion." 1 Corinthians 7:8-9
"27... Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned;" 1 Corinthians 7:27-28
Of course I will go into much more detail next week, but in the meantime, I want to exhort all of us with a couple of things as we leave with this fresh on our minds. Foremost, if you are contemplating divorce, don't try to make the New Covenant Scriptures conform to your scheme. It won't work. What God wants from you is to abide in the higher law of love in which you manifest the fruits of the Spirit out of your heart toward your spouse that God joined you with. God wants you to have real love in real grace that is long suffering. He wants you to forgive seventy times seven which actually means to never stop forgiving. God wants you to show true fidelity by upholding the marriage covenant with your Christian spouse no matter what. If you must get away from your spouse for safety reasons where he or she is breaking the law of the land, which includes violence toward you, then that is a different story. The Scriptures speak to obeying earthly governing authorities of which your so-called Christian spouse is subject to as well. By the same token, if you have instigated divorce from a Christian, then you need to acknowledge that instigating breaking from your brother or sister is a sin. You also need to realize that through Christ, you are forgiven if you have gone through a divorce. If your spouse instigated divorce from you though you wanted to stay faithful to your marriage covenant, then both your will and God's will has been transgressed by that other person, and you have been put away under duress of forced compliance. Your ex-spouse is the one that has broken the marriage covenant bond. Finally I urge everyone to make sure to be here next week for the sermon called "What About New Covenant Grounds for Remarriage?"
FOOTNOTES:
(1) The Mosaic Law practice of stoning people to death was still practiced during that time as is seen in the story of the woman caught in adultery that is found in John 8. The story historically and accurately reflects the procedure of that time despite one's view of redaction. Another example of stoning is seen when Stephen was stoned to death according to the Mosaic Law practice of stoning, Acts 7:58-59. Apparently the Jews used Leviticus 24:16 to try justify their execution. In fact Jesus had pointed out earlier that Jerusalem was in the practice of stoning all the prophets that God was sending to her in Matthew 23:37. Apostate Jewish leadership apparently tried to use the Law to justify stoning God's real prophets. There is also the example in which the chief priests, scribes, and elders were afraid that the Israelite people would stone them for saying that John the baptist was not a true prophet of God, Luke 20:6. The captains and the officers that arrested Peter were afraid of being stoned too by the Israelite people, Acts 5:26. Paul the apostle was stoned. Once he was stoned by Jews, apparently to death, but was miraculously revived, Acts 14:19-20, 2 Corinthians 11:25. There were also times that people meant to stone Paul but never got to do it, Acts 14:5. Numerous times, Jews picked up rocks to stone Jesus for blasphemy in accord with the statute in Leviticus 24:16, but God's providential hand stopped them as we see in John 8:59, John 10:31.
@1. Jesus Christ is the guarantee of a ________________________ covenant," Hebrews 7:22, 8:6
@2. From the beginning of creation, the way of God is that a man shall leave his father and mother and be ___________________ to His wife, and the two shall become ______________ flesh. Matthew 19:5 (Genesis 2:24)
@3. In Christ Jesus we, who believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, have redemption through His blood the ____________________ of our trespasses according to the riches of His grace." Ephesians 1:7
@4. If any of us children of God in Christ __________ we have someone who stands with us with the Father. He is Jesus Christ the righteous One. He is the one who absorbed God's wrath for us for our ____________. 1 John 2:1-2
